I Nelson J Kruschandl, of Oakwood, Lime Park Herstmonceux in the County of East Sussex, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows :-


1.     That I moved into a run down barn like building in Lime Park in or about April of 1982 by agreement with Mr N F Askaroff.  I named this building The Barnhouse, which name was changed to Oakwood a number of years later. 


2.     Mr Askaroff rented the building to me during this time because he had agreed to sell the property to me and he was not yet in a position to do so. Also, we had not yet instructed solicitors as to the transfer.


3.     From the date of first occupation I used the buildings as my home.  I also used part of the building as an office and other parts as workshops.


4.     I am an inventor and design engineer.  I have worked mainly on vehicle improvements and I now hold patents for electrically powered vehicles which refuel instantly.  These intellectual developments have all been completed at Oakwood, without which I could not have begun my work.


5.     By June and July of 1982 I had a telephone installed and electricity billed directly.  This, together with Affidavits from persons recalling events and correspondence from the solicitors handling the property transfer, is my proof of first occupation.


6.     During September 1982 and April 1986 I received numerous visits from Wealden District Council officers concerning Tree Preservation, Industrial Usage and Residential Accommodation culminating in personal service of an Enforcement Notice (EN) dated 18th April 1986.  The notice came with an Ordnance Survey based plan showing two buildings, one large and one small.  The notice was for me to cease use of these two buildings shown for residential purposes.


7.     The large building on the EN plan, coloured in red, consisted of workshops, an office and a living area.  The small building coloured in blue was referred to as a “garden tool store”.  There is no building shown where the garden tool store was shown.  In fact the position indicated was a coal bunker long since demolished.  The garden tool store is west on the plan some 10 feet away.


8.     I appealed against the notice and continued to live where I had been living, in an air raid shelter, a conservatory and an underground room, east on the plan.  None of these buildings were shown on the plan or described in the schedule of the EN.  No other EN has been served.  The onus is on the local authority to accurately define and unambiguously identify the use complained of, which they have so far failed to do.  In planning terms the development is invisible.


9.     The appeal to the DOE on the building served with the EN was refused in 1987.  The buildings I was using for residential purposes were not affected by the EN. Accordingly, this did not affect my accommodation.  The DOE Inspector mistakenly confused the air raid shelter for the coal bunker on the plan.  However, under the 1972 and 1990 T&CP Acts as amended, an Inspector does not have the power to extend and enforcement notice or make correction(s) so as to cause an injustice.  Wealden had in effect served a defective notice.


10.  In 1987 Wealden prosecuted me for “breach of an enforcement notice”.  On appeal in the Crown Court at Lewes, case number 887111, the Judge upheld my argument that the buildings I had continued to use for residential accommodation were not included in the EN.  Victorio Patrick Scarpa (now head legal services) handled the matter for Wealden.


11.  According to the four year rule, those buildings were now immune from any form of enforcement action.  They had been lived in for more than four years and any form of enforcement action thereafter would be unlawful.


12.  In June of 1995 Wealden sought injunctive relief in the High Court in London against those buildings now immune.  Christine Jennifer Nuttall (Wealden solicitor under V P Scarpa) provided information by way of a sworn affidavit.  This information included a copy of the EN plan numbered 1243 which area of cover became much enlarged over the original. 


13. Mrs Nuttall achieved this deception by two means.  1. smudging the main building area and encircling it with ink, and 2. contrary to normal rules of evidence, another plan was included which was not the original EN plan, but contained an inset enlargement showing detail of the main building and the underground chamber.  The detailed area coincidentally matched the newly smudged plan.


14.  The second plan bore an enforcement reference number suggesting a link to the original plan.  The second plan also omitted the air raid shelter and the conservatory.  There is no consistency in the evidence put forward by Wealden.  The detailed plan leaves out information of buildings immune from enforcement.  These were the buildings in use.  Not those covered by the EN.


15.  A later plan numbered 1458 was used for the appeal against the EN plan 1243.  An appeal plan must always be the same as the original EN plan for a DOE Inspector.  Yet the later plan 1458 prepared by Wealden for the appeal in 1987 has much smaller area cover.  In fact it is the same as the original EN plan before tampering by the legal department and portrayed by Christine Nuttall in the High Court as true copies.


16.  It is plain to me that Christine Nuttall perjured herself in order to obtain the injunction.  It is clear that where there was a need for great accuracy and careful description she deliberately altered the evidence to suit her purposes and to mislead Justice Previte into granting an unjust injunction.


17.  For some time I was shocked by the methods employed by Wealden in these proceedings.  A simple planning matter now dealt with by Crown and High Courts at considerable expense to the nation.  Recently I have been introduced to a number of other persons in the Wealden area.  Each of these persons have had dealings with the planning and legal departments at Wealden.  In most of these cases Wealden have been found guilty of MALADMINISTRATION by the Ombudsman.  Details of these other cases can be found on the Internet http:/ourworld/homepage/C_Hudson2.


18.  It must now be asked - how can it be that Wealden’s administration can regularly tamper with evidence, swear untruths and cause untold misery to so many people and get away with it.  The answer is that there is no proper controlling body to investigate.  The Ombudsman looks at each case in isolation and merely slaps Wealden on the wrist for these offences. Any other body or person would be fined and the perpetrators jailed or struck off or both.


19.  In addition to their, possibly, criminal misinterpretation and application of planning law, Wealden District Council are infringing my basic human rights.


20.  Every person is guaranteed the right to life and liberty under the European Convention of Human Rights.  I have lived at Oakwood for 13 years and worked here for 15 years.  My right to be close to my work was taken away unlawfully in 1995 by the injunction based on the tampered and incomplete evidence of Christine Nuttall in June 1995.


21.  I lived in a caravan parked at Oakwood from 1995 to 1996 in order to continue my work and now this too has been taken away under the threat of Committal proceedings in the High Court, which I have endured three times.


22.  I could lose my liberty if I choose to keep working.  Wealden are now saying that I am not entitled to a toilet and canteen facilities at my workshops and office.  They are actively seeking removal at this time.  In effect, Wealden are also saying that I am not entitled to expand my enterprise by the 25% allowed under the General Development Order.  This must be interpreted as nothing short of a MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, which is of itself a criminal MISUSE OF AUTHORITY.


23.  Under the English Legal Aid scheme it is not open for me to challenge the injunction in the High Court.  Apparently, there is not a high enough chance of success and because of this the right to justice has been denied to me.  I cannot afford to privately fund or otherwise initiate litigation.  All I can do is wait for another Committal issue, when Legal Aid is available.  Unfortunately, this emergency assistance will not allow a proper defence on the fundamental issues and is always limited to just that action, not the root cause.


24.  All of my efforts to live and work have been based around the unique facilities at Oakwood.  It is the investment of my entire working life that is threatened.  I have not the resources to relocate and normal commercial funding is not open to me at this time. 


25.  This matter must be resolved in order that I may continue and work to be able to live - which is my basic human right.


26.  I make this Solemn Declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the statutory Declarations Act 1835 and I attach copies of the enforcement notice and appeal site plans cited as exhibits.


Declared by the above named    ……………………………………….

at ………………………………………………………  in the County of

East Sussex this ……….. day of  May 1997



Before me, ……..……………………..............          Solicitor, Commissioner of Oaths














THIS SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS COUNCIL'S UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR - With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents.  *THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*


Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311


A-Z Index  |  Site Map  |  Contact Us  |  Help

This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary UK Limited.